RE: The system has been in disequilibrium forever. And always will be.

Steady state is different from equilibrium Ed. A relatively stable state is steady state. If barriers to potential equilibrium reactions exist limiting rates determine the steady state not equilibrim conditions. Again an argument typical of those without a deep understanding of chemistry or computer modeling.

RE" While we should always seek prudent ways to be steward the resources we have available, I find it doubtful that the models are giving us the tools we need to be very prudent or wise.

Why because you don't like the results? The accuracy of the current models is pretty good in comparison to many models used simply for rule of thumb guidence in making engineeering judgements and given the high noise level in the data yet somehow you expect perfect simulations for one of the most complicated systems known?

RE: Your premise does not at all account for the changes induced during the mini-iceage, nor does it account for the evidence in the geological history of periods of extremely rapid change.

Yes it does. I mentioned explicitly that past change is no reason to ignore obvious correlations and supporting evidence in the absence of another proven cause. I mentioned some other well known causes to make it clear past changes are not some mysterious void to scientists. I have also mentioned the huge potential negative impact of warming up the Earth enough to release methane/clathrate deposits. Our current models don't even attempt to predict the impact of massive relases of a GW gas roughly 100 times stronger than CO2. The argument regarding past rapid changes totally overlooks our ability to upset buffering systems which is a point I tried to make clear earlier and the activation of other chemical and thermal cycles at higher temperatures. That data should be a warning that even small changes can upset the balance towards even greater changes. There is absolutely no reason to be blase about GW because bigger changes than predicted have occured in the past. It is far more a reason for extreme caution.

RE: The costs will be born and the advantages found as the weather continues to cycle through it inevitable changes.

The climate was stable for thoudands of years Ed before we started spewing out CO2. That line of argument is a complete cop-out. If it was anatural change with negative consequences we were certain of we would try to fight it IMO. By your logic we should just sit back and wait for the next impact because its "natural". Even if you really believe that logic it does not apply to an effect we have good reason to believe we are responsible for. Putting aside moral considerations its also a matter of a sound fiscal decision to avoid catastrophic costs just like you do with insurance.

RE: Instead of flattering ourselves that we are now masters of the weather, we would be far better off in spending time in seeking coping skills.

We are not in charge of anything when we are in denial of what is happening. Taking charge requires an active decision. Is it your choice to let the Earth warm up? If you lived in a hurricane prone area like I do you might not dismiss coping as such an easy thing to do. While the US can cope pretty well with weather disasters, they have killed tens of thousands in poorer countries (even relatively weak tropical storms). The disregard for this potential cost really makes it hard for me to take seriously any pretense of moral ground by those denying GW.

Regards,
Mark